History
  • No items yet
midpage
Rose v. Romano
262 A.D. 731
N.Y. App. Div.
1941
Check Treatment
Per Curiam.

Upon the record presented, we are of opinion that the defendant Carlo Romano failed to present sufficient proof to entitle him to the relief granted. While there is much force in appellant’s argument that the codefendant Nunziata Romano, sued as “ Maria ” Romano, is chargeable with laches, we are of opinion that in the circumstances so much of the order as directs that a reference be had as to the alleged service of initial process upon her should be sustained.

It follows, therefore, that the determination of the Appellate Term, in so far as in conflict with the views here expressed, should be reversed; and otherwise affirmed.

Present — Martin, P. J., O’Malley, Townley, Dore and Cohn, JJ.

*732Determination unanimously reversed to the extent indicated in opinion, and otherwise affirmed. Settle order on notice.

Case Details

Case Name: Rose v. Romano
Court Name: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
Date Published: May 29, 1941
Citation: 262 A.D. 731
Court Abbreviation: N.Y. App. Div.
AI-generated responses must be verified and are not legal advice.
Your Notebook is empty. To add cases, bookmark them from your search, or select Add Cases to extract citations from a PDF or a block of text.